[170181] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: misunderstanding scale
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Warren Bailey)
Mon Mar 24 21:42:13 2014
From: Warren Bailey <wbailey@satelliteintelligencegroup.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:05:12 +0000
In-Reply-To: <m2vbv3ywzw.wl%randy@psg.com>
Cc: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>,
North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
FYI He tells everyone they=B9re cute. Don=B9t buy his tricks, he doesn=B9t =
call
back the next morning.
;)
Ps. Take it easy on each other. It=B9s the beginning of spring.. Head
outside.. Go have a beer.. Smoke a joint.. What I am getting at is.. It=B9s
possible you guys should relax and realize that in the grand scheme of
things a lot of this really doesn=B9t matter.
Go be humans beings in the world, the internet and this flame thread will
still be here as it has been for generations (internet generations,
anyways..)
Just my .02
WOOOOOSAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
On 3/24/14, 4:53 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>>> You propose stateless NAT64 as an viable alternative to CGN.
> ^^^
>>> where do i do that?
>> Nick Hilliard
>
>ahh. i see your error. i am not nick hilliard. he's the cute one.
>
>> Your reply (verbosity added for clarity): "[Sure it is! Unlike where
>> folks solve their problem with CGN, v6 to v4 protocol translation] can
>> be stateless."
>
>again, you put words in my mouth which were not there. i did not say v6
>to v4 translation.
>
>> Nah, I'm done following bread crumbs for the day.
>
>cool. then we can all go back to reality and whet people actually said.
>
>bye
>
>randy
>
>
>
